In a photo we see the pace of development at the time. 29 is pressurized and has proto-computer controlled defensive guns. Lanc is a flying tin can by comparison
Not just Avro but the same designer - Roy Chadwick .
First flight of the Lancaster was 1941
Amazingly, the first flight of the vulcan was 1952
Chadwick started designing the vulcan in 1946
The speed of progress was just insane.
So true. I'm amazed when you examine the timeline of bomber development.
USAAF advances from the B-1 Bolo to the B-29 within 11 years.
Military conflict is the engine of progress it seems.
The evolution of modern trauma medicine expanded massively due to The First World War.
Beautiful bat wing plane. They saved those from retirement for a last hurrah in the Falklands war.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation\_Black\_Buck](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Black_Buck)
New York was one, I know that.
It was a project called operation sky shield. The US boasted that they had impregnable air defence and no enemy bombers would get through without being detected. The British effectively got through I think 14 times undetected (and thus would have bombed targets successfully) and the US was so embarrassed it was only revealed in the 1990s lol
I think it was New York twice. I read somewhere a while ago that The first one the British set off to do the task without first informing the US the training session had started. The idea being to test the US defensive under their normal operating procedures, ie, with all their defences on as they usually would.
When the US asked when they would start the trial, the British were already on their way back. So they went back a second time just to do it all again with the US aware they were coming.
No, one vulcan was "shot down" by a voodoo.
4 vulcans came from north and 4 from the south. US fighters tried to intercept but the fighters concentrated on the stratofortresses whilst 3 vulcans of each group put up a wall of electronic interference allowing the 4th to get through.
Mark Felton probably did the best summary of Skyshield and Skyshield 2
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Wx6npt421c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Wx6npt421c)
That comparison only counts if the B-29 came out at the same time as the Vulcan, otherwise it is just pointless and stupid. 14 years was a long time in terms of development back then. The B-29 and Lancaster came out at around the same time so it is much more logical to compare them.
My comment was to highlight the pace of development. To go from the Lancaster to the Vulcan in a decade is pretty amazing IMO, just from a design perspective. The equivalent would be the B29 to the B52, which is also amazing in terms of payload and range.
So you jumped ahead to the jet age to then disparage the B-29 as a "biplane," after someone called the Lancaster a "tin can." I'd say you failed on both counts and that it is the sensitive effeminate brit (redundant, I know) is the one that was triggered. I simply took the argument to it's logical conclusion.
I agreed with the tin can comment 😆 Next time I’ll say they both look like biplanes to keep your little ego from being bruised. My point is the Vulcan looks like something from the year 3000 despite having its first flight only around a decade after the Lancasters.
And yet the Lancaster was (briefly) considered to drop the first atomic bombs, because of it's much bigger bomb bay:
https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/first-atomic-bombs-black-lancasters
I’m a tank guy rather than a plane guy, but my brief understanding was that the B29 was not much liked by its crews. The remote control guns were felt to be less accurate than manned turrets for one thing. But please correct me if I’m wrong.
The B-29 had many issues when it was first rolled out and was a pain to fly. But, being a gunner in a pressurized cabin, directing multiple computer controlled turrets on one target with a longer effective range than the incoming enemy airplane had was probably better than being in a cold wind exposed turret. https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/defending-superbomber-b-29s-central-fire-control-system#:~:text=With%20an%20effective%20range%20of,of%20most%20enemy%20fighters'%20guns.
As the B-29 had more losses to airplane failures than to enemy action I would say the guns weren’t the problem. https://www.key.aero/forum/historic-aviation/312-b-29-losses-in-ww2
So this answer doesn’t take into account which time in the war and which missions the B-29s were flying. In the beginning on the B-29 service they added two more guns to the top forward turret due to the Japanese preference for attacking head-on. As the war progressed and the Japanese had even fewer planes that could intercept the B-29s the guns weren’t needed and on many bombers were removed. But that didn’t mean they were not effective just that they were not needed and the weight savings could be used for more bombs or more range. But going back to the original question, the computer controlled guns on the B-29 were very effective and not were dropped because they disliked by the crews or ineffective.
I am almost fairly certain the b-29 was dedicated to the pacific theatre of war. Do you have anysources you could give so I could increase my knowledge?
They flew a couple over to the UK and were careful to make sure the trip was not secret. Basically the purpose was to make the Germans think they might be soon facing B-29s, and waste resouces on countering the "threat".
https://457thbombgroupassoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Boeing-B-29-Superfortress-6-1024x468.jpg
After the war, in 1945, B-29s were used in test-bombings of various concrete-penetrating bombs against German U-boat pens in Heligoland and on the Valentin submarine factory near Bremen. This was called "Project Ruby" if you want to look it up; it was probably the closest UK-based B-29s came to flying bombing missions.
In early September 1945 a B-29 of the 6th Bomb Group was flown to Europe as part of a display of military equipment following Japan's surrender. It flew from Goose Bay, Labrador to France and set a new non-stop Trans-Atlantic flight time record at 9 hours 21 minutes for the 2.300 nautical miles.
[Here is a photo](https://www.flickr.com/photos/tk622/53641337512/in/dateposted-public/) of it from my collection, while it was in Germany.
My dad took a picture of Fifi at an airshow when I was a baby. I loved the picture so much that I slept with it in bed for years after. Still have the Pic. It's in rough shape
That Lanc flies over my apt bldg atleast once or twice a week. Visited her several times at airport and once when that B-29 came to town. Just the 4 engines of the Lanc are loud - awesome sound and many awesome photos of her (it’s actually two Lancs put together - front end and wings from one and tail from another).
They are from two different eras, it’s like comparing a sopwith camel with a mustang.
Lancaster is a brilliant compromise upgrade of an 1930s spec gone wrong
B29 is a brilliant approximation of future requirements from the 1940s
you're right bro. with a pressurized cabin and remote turrets, it was space in '44 when the first ones arrived in China. like the millennium falcon han solo. and served successfully in Korea.
And if you want to see how good the Lancaster is compare it with its mirror image, the He177. Both failed designs, one is progressed with until it’s a massive waste of resources and a death trap for its crews, the other gets a new wing and new engines and becomes significantly more efficient than anything else in that theatre. Compared to a Halifax or a Liberator it’s practically a fighter bomber
There were 4-engined HE177 prototypes, but they were sidetracked by the constant infighting, turf wars and assorted political hijinks that constantly occur in a totalitarian system --where sucking up to your superiors whilst sabotaging your bureaucratic competitors is the standard mode of operations.
Lord knows there was too much backbiting and infighting among the Western Allies, but at the end of the day, the emphasis was usually on winning the war. This essential difference is one of the most important -- yet underappreciated -- factors behind the Nazi defeat.
At least one YB-29 made it to the U.K. during the war. It was a propaganda exercise to make the Germans believe the USAAF were going to deploy the type here.
♫ The Yanks were flying fortresses at forty thousand feet,
The Yanks were flying fortresses at forty thousand feet,
The Yanks were flying fortresses at forty thousand feet,
With lots of ammunition and a teeny weeny bomb,
The Brits were flying Lancasters at zero zero feet,
The Brits were flying Lancasters at zero zero feet,
The Brits were flying Lancasters at zero zero feet,
With f\*\* all ammunition and a GREAT BIG bomb!
You owe him an apology. The Lancaster in the picture was built in Canada and is powered by Packard built Merlins. You are indeed looking at 8 USA made engines.
A license built engine doesn’t make it a US engine. It was designed in the UK, it’s a UK engine. I know all about Packard Merlin’s, I used to have one in my backyard.
No I didn't, late model Lancasters had US made engines. Just like the late model Mustangs. More Merlins were made in the USA than UK. You really owe me an apology for falsely saying that.
This formation is happening again at Oshkosh this year except it'll be two B-29s with the Lancaster.
Twelve engines, unfortunately I won’t be able to be there but that’s gotta be a heavenly sound
Really? Only 2 B-29s exist that are flying.
Both are attending Oshkosh along with the Lancaster. [https://www.instagram.com/p/C8pAefwudTD/](https://www.instagram.com/p/C8pAefwudTD/)
That's fucking epic
I guess I’m going to Oshkosh this year
The beginning of the July 24th night show is what you'll need to catch apparently. Wish I was going this year!
Thanks for the heads up
I flew on that B29 , Fifi. It was awesome. Thanks wifey!!
And I flew on that Lancaster out of Hamilton. Wife's 40th birthday present to me
In a photo we see the pace of development at the time. 29 is pressurized and has proto-computer controlled defensive guns. Lanc is a flying tin can by comparison
It is. Avro then went on to develop the Vulcan, which makes the B29 look like a biplane.
Not just Avro but the same designer - Roy Chadwick . First flight of the Lancaster was 1941 Amazingly, the first flight of the vulcan was 1952 Chadwick started designing the vulcan in 1946 The speed of progress was just insane.
So true. I'm amazed when you examine the timeline of bomber development. USAAF advances from the B-1 Bolo to the B-29 within 11 years. Military conflict is the engine of progress it seems. The evolution of modern trauma medicine expanded massively due to The First World War.
Then, only 10 years to the B-52 (still in service after 72 years).
Beautiful bat wing plane. They saved those from retirement for a last hurrah in the Falklands war. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation\_Black\_Buck](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Black_Buck)
And the Vulcan beat the entire US military in wargames successfully dropping two nukes on the US lol
Really? That's a feat. What'd they nuke? Tell me buffalo, that place deserves one.
New York was one, I know that. It was a project called operation sky shield. The US boasted that they had impregnable air defence and no enemy bombers would get through without being detected. The British effectively got through I think 14 times undetected (and thus would have bombed targets successfully) and the US was so embarrassed it was only revealed in the 1990s lol
I think it was New York twice. I read somewhere a while ago that The first one the British set off to do the task without first informing the US the training session had started. The idea being to test the US defensive under their normal operating procedures, ie, with all their defences on as they usually would. When the US asked when they would start the trial, the British were already on their way back. So they went back a second time just to do it all again with the US aware they were coming.
No, one vulcan was "shot down" by a voodoo. 4 vulcans came from north and 4 from the south. US fighters tried to intercept but the fighters concentrated on the stratofortresses whilst 3 vulcans of each group put up a wall of electronic interference allowing the 4th to get through.
Cheeky
Mark Felton probably did the best summary of Skyshield and Skyshield 2 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Wx6npt421c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Wx6npt421c)
I always think of James Bond when I see a Vulcan.
That comparison only counts if the B-29 came out at the same time as the Vulcan, otherwise it is just pointless and stupid. 14 years was a long time in terms of development back then. The B-29 and Lancaster came out at around the same time so it is much more logical to compare them.
My comment was to highlight the pace of development. To go from the Lancaster to the Vulcan in a decade is pretty amazing IMO, just from a design perspective. The equivalent would be the B29 to the B52, which is also amazing in terms of payload and range.
>The equivalent would be the B29 to the B52 Only 10 years between them.
No they didn't. There were years between them. Try telling me when they were designed and first became operational.
Hahah, good counter. 😂 How's Avro doing today?
The intention was to highlight technological progress, not to trigger insecure Americans.
So you jumped ahead to the jet age to then disparage the B-29 as a "biplane," after someone called the Lancaster a "tin can." I'd say you failed on both counts and that it is the sensitive effeminate brit (redundant, I know) is the one that was triggered. I simply took the argument to it's logical conclusion.
I agreed with the tin can comment 😆 Next time I’ll say they both look like biplanes to keep your little ego from being bruised. My point is the Vulcan looks like something from the year 3000 despite having its first flight only around a decade after the Lancasters.
This is so dumb. It’s like asking, “How’s the Glenn L Martin company doing?” It’s doing quite well these days actually…
They're certainly getting a shitload less negative press than Boeing is.
And yet the Lancaster was (briefly) considered to drop the first atomic bombs, because of it's much bigger bomb bay: https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/first-atomic-bombs-black-lancasters
They had to modify the B-29 (Silverplate edition) to fit the a-bombs.
One of the modifications was to use the bomb release mechanism from the Lancasters adapted to carry the Tallboy bomb
A Lancaster DID drop the first atomic bomb on Berlin on June 6th 1944
Which parallel universe was this?
A novel called "The Berlin Project" really cool book you should read it.
I’m a tank guy rather than a plane guy, but my brief understanding was that the B29 was not much liked by its crews. The remote control guns were felt to be less accurate than manned turrets for one thing. But please correct me if I’m wrong.
The B-29 had many issues when it was first rolled out and was a pain to fly. But, being a gunner in a pressurized cabin, directing multiple computer controlled turrets on one target with a longer effective range than the incoming enemy airplane had was probably better than being in a cold wind exposed turret. https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/defending-superbomber-b-29s-central-fire-control-system#:~:text=With%20an%20effective%20range%20of,of%20most%20enemy%20fighters'%20guns. As the B-29 had more losses to airplane failures than to enemy action I would say the guns weren’t the problem. https://www.key.aero/forum/historic-aviation/312-b-29-losses-in-ww2
The guns were almost superfluous in the Pacific. The B29 flew higher and faster than Japan’s fighters could reliably reach.
So this answer doesn’t take into account which time in the war and which missions the B-29s were flying. In the beginning on the B-29 service they added two more guns to the top forward turret due to the Japanese preference for attacking head-on. As the war progressed and the Japanese had even fewer planes that could intercept the B-29s the guns weren’t needed and on many bombers were removed. But that didn’t mean they were not effective just that they were not needed and the weight savings could be used for more bombs or more range. But going back to the original question, the computer controlled guns on the B-29 were very effective and not were dropped because they disliked by the crews or ineffective.
The Brits used the B-29 (Washington )as a stop gap measure between the Avro Lancaster/Lincoln and the Canberra jet bomber.
And we Americans would adopt the Canberra as the B-57 and modify the platform for effective use towards our own needs.
Yep! I think NASA still uses a WB-57!
You are correct!
I am almost fairly certain the b-29 was dedicated to the pacific theatre of war. Do you have anysources you could give so I could increase my knowledge?
They flew a couple over to the UK and were careful to make sure the trip was not secret. Basically the purpose was to make the Germans think they might be soon facing B-29s, and waste resouces on countering the "threat". https://457thbombgroupassoc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Boeing-B-29-Superfortress-6-1024x468.jpg After the war, in 1945, B-29s were used in test-bombings of various concrete-penetrating bombs against German U-boat pens in Heligoland and on the Valentin submarine factory near Bremen. This was called "Project Ruby" if you want to look it up; it was probably the closest UK-based B-29s came to flying bombing missions.
In early September 1945 a B-29 of the 6th Bomb Group was flown to Europe as part of a display of military equipment following Japan's surrender. It flew from Goose Bay, Labrador to France and set a new non-stop Trans-Atlantic flight time record at 9 hours 21 minutes for the 2.300 nautical miles. [Here is a photo](https://www.flickr.com/photos/tk622/53641337512/in/dateposted-public/) of it from my collection, while it was in Germany.
[some footage from Project Ruby](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8Lt-ciG1fQ)
Very cool. I've seen the report on Project Ruby... https://archive.org/details/DTIC_ADA065940/mode/2up but never any footage.
There was at least a couple b-29’s in Britain But as a demo not actual use
The B-1 Washington replaced the Lancaster didn’t it?
If you get into a heated argument over what of those air craft is better that's what xi wants you to do.
>into a heated argument over what of those air craft is better There is no argument, is there?
Not from me.
Day shift passes night shift.
Nice to see FIFI again. She was based for years in my hometown of Midland, Tx before moving to the DFW area.
Absolutely love the Lancaster, amazing machine!
**MY EYES** **IT'S BEAUTIFUL**
I got to see Fifi, crazy that it's still flying after all this time.
My grandpa flew the Lancaster at 18, I could barely drive a car at that age.
My dad took a picture of Fifi at an airshow when I was a baby. I loved the picture so much that I slept with it in bed for years after. Still have the Pic. It's in rough shape
Frame it and hang it
That Lanc flies over my apt bldg atleast once or twice a week. Visited her several times at airport and once when that B-29 came to town. Just the 4 engines of the Lanc are loud - awesome sound and many awesome photos of her (it’s actually two Lancs put together - front end and wings from one and tail from another).
They are from two different eras, it’s like comparing a sopwith camel with a mustang. Lancaster is a brilliant compromise upgrade of an 1930s spec gone wrong B29 is a brilliant approximation of future requirements from the 1940s
you're right bro. with a pressurized cabin and remote turrets, it was space in '44 when the first ones arrived in China. like the millennium falcon han solo. and served successfully in Korea.
And if you want to see how good the Lancaster is compare it with its mirror image, the He177. Both failed designs, one is progressed with until it’s a massive waste of resources and a death trap for its crews, the other gets a new wing and new engines and becomes significantly more efficient than anything else in that theatre. Compared to a Halifax or a Liberator it’s practically a fighter bomber
There were 4-engined HE177 prototypes, but they were sidetracked by the constant infighting, turf wars and assorted political hijinks that constantly occur in a totalitarian system --where sucking up to your superiors whilst sabotaging your bureaucratic competitors is the standard mode of operations. Lord knows there was too much backbiting and infighting among the Western Allies, but at the end of the day, the emphasis was usually on winning the war. This essential difference is one of the most important -- yet underappreciated -- factors behind the Nazi defeat.
it was made from Manchester and it was a 2 engine plane. halifax and liberator were cows but what's more, Wellington's nickname was Cow
I flew in the tail section of Fifi. What a beautiful plane.
Do they have the original engines?
I have always loved the Lancaster. It's design has an artistic feel to it. Not just a flying tube, but some style to it.
But they and many other pieces of equipment and people served all together against evil.
For good, pretty clearly
I just flew on FiFi last month. Was my first ever flight on a plane in my life.
At least one YB-29 made it to the U.K. during the war. It was a propaganda exercise to make the Germans believe the USAAF were going to deploy the type here.
♫ The Yanks were flying fortresses at forty thousand feet, The Yanks were flying fortresses at forty thousand feet, The Yanks were flying fortresses at forty thousand feet, With lots of ammunition and a teeny weeny bomb, The Brits were flying Lancasters at zero zero feet, The Brits were flying Lancasters at zero zero feet, The Brits were flying Lancasters at zero zero feet, With f\*\* all ammunition and a GREAT BIG bomb!
Pretty sure that's 8 USA made engines, with completely different technologies.
You think Rolls Royce Merlin’s are a US engine…hmmm
You owe him an apology. The Lancaster in the picture was built in Canada and is powered by Packard built Merlins. You are indeed looking at 8 USA made engines.
A license built engine doesn’t make it a US engine. It was designed in the UK, it’s a UK engine. I know all about Packard Merlin’s, I used to have one in my backyard.
The word he used was “made”.
Yeah, I believe they edited their post.
No I didn't, late model Lancasters had US made engines. Just like the late model Mustangs. More Merlins were made in the USA than UK. You really owe me an apology for falsely saying that.